Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
...and this was recommended to me by the young one (the “teenage one” just about now) – good for him.
“It's called the American dream because you have to be asleep to believe it.” – George Carlin
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
“Show me an ad with a dog with a smile; don’t try to shame me,” Mr. Frei told The A.P. The kennel club had expressed its concerns to Pedigree, he said, adding, “We told them that, and they ignored us.”WAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
And for good measure, I give you Rachel Maddow and that Repug presidential candidate with a Google problem here…This tells us that Charles Chaput, head of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, is of course speaking out in protest, desperate for any opportunity to move the spotlight from the hideous recent school closings. This, despite the fact that contraception coverage is provided at other Catholic institutions (here, including this one). Also, this is despite the fact that contraception coverage is supported by a majority of Catholics (here). Oh, and Willard Mitt Romney once supported the contraception coverage he now opposes (here), and good for Obama for bashing him on it (here).
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
(Part One including the setup is here, and Part Two is here...this may be the last regular post before the hiatus, or at best the next-to-last one.)Serving Our Veterans
HR 2433, Veterans Opportunity to Work (VOW) Act of 2011I couldn’t find anything controversial about these bills, though, in the matter of our veterans, I would ask once more why Mikey voted against both a combat pay raise and a bill guaranteeing pay to our military in the event of a government shut down, noted here.
HR 1392, Introduced the Fairness to Veterans Act of 2011
HR 178, Military Surviving Spouses Equity Act
HR 333, Disabled Veterans Tax Termination Act
HR 2534, Ensuring America’s Promises Act of 2011
HR 2349, Veterans Benefits Training Improvement Act of 2011
HR 2074, Veterans Sexual Assault Prevention and Health Care Enhancement Act
Protecting The Environment
HR 1964, Conservation Easement Incentive Act of 2011I can’t find anything wrong with HR 1964 (Local Repug Jim Gerlach is a co-sponsor with Dem Mike Thompson of California, as noted here). And as noted here, Mikey was wise to oppose HR 2018, which basically is a gift to polluters and guts the Clean Water Act.
Opposed HR 2018, Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act
Government Reform
Fitzpatrick co-sponsored Repug U.S. House Rep Mike Coffman’s HR 2913 bill (here), which terminated a member of Congress’s ability to pay into a defined benefit pension plan. That’s a good step, although, as noted here, members of Congress currently pay about 1.3 percent of their salaries into their retirement, described as “puny” by Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe (and I agree with that characterization).Maximizing Domestic Energy Production
HR 1230, Restarting American Offshore Leasing Now Act(Now we’re going to get back to what the Repugs do best. And I don’t mean that in a good way.)
HR 1229, Putting the Gulf of Mexico Back to Work Act
HR 1231, Reversing President Obama’s Offshore Moratorium Act
HR 2021, the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act of 2011
HR 1938, the North American-Made Energy Security Act
HR 3410, the Energy Security and Transportation Jobs Act
Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) opposed the bill: “One year ago today, we were 2 weeks into the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. We were 2 weeks into what would ultimately become the worst environmental disaster in our Nation's history, with more than 4 million barrels of oil spilling into the Gulf. And since that disaster, we have learned many things about the safety of offshore drilling….We learned that the oil companies had neither the resources nor the ability to stop a deepwater blowout. BP spill response included an attempt to shoot golf balls and bits of rubber into the well. When we were told that the industry was relying on the most sophisticated technologies, we assumed that they meant technologies developed by MIT and not the PGA….And yet here we are debating legislation that would do nothing to improve the safety of offshore drilling and could actually make drilling less safe. The legislation before us represents a return to the pre-spill mentality of speed over safety.”And as noted here in response to HR 1229, this is still more overreach by this Congress, trying to tell an executive-branch agency what to do, in this case telling the EPA to review 40 drilling permit applications within 60 days (and what exactly does this have to do with job creation again – I probably could have said more about this last May, but didn’t…my bad).
Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) also opposed the bill: “I rise in strong opposition to this oil spill amnesia bill that threatens our coastal communities….The bill sidesteps safety and environmental reviews, acting as if the Nation's worst oil spill in history never happened. And, it pushes a failed energy plan that pours billions of dollars into already overstuffed oil industry coffers. The only thing it adds up to… is a false promise. The truth is the Republican majority is hoping to delude the public into believing that this rush to new offshore drilling will provide a quick fix to high gas prices, but the harsh reality is this: The U.S. is never going to have control over world oil supplies or gas prices through drilling. We simply don't have the oil reserves, no matter how much we drill. What we do have is the ability to control prices by lowering our consumption, and that's just what we're starting to do.”
This drill-only bill mandates the most sweeping expansion of offshore drilling in our nation’s history – making broad swaths of the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts open for leasing automatically.And by the way, as noted here, the BP spill victims (remember them?) continue to suffer (and as noted here, Mikey voted against a Democratic motion to H.R. 1231 to prohibit energy companies from selling abroad the outer continental shelf oil and natural gas they extract under federal leases).
“The legislation is not about creating jobs. It is not about lowering gasoline prices. It is a giveaway to the oil industry that will increase pollution along our coasts….There are many flaws in the legislation. It allows huge increases in air pollution from oil and gas drilling activities by moving the point of measurement from the drill ship to the shore….The legislation eliminates the Environmental Appeals Board from the permitting process, even though it is a cheaper, faster, and more expert substitute for judicial review. And it requires all challenges to air permits to be raised before the Federal Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., thousands of miles away from the affected communities. Claims that this legislation will reduce gas prices or the budget deficit are nonsense. They have no substantiation. There are sensible improvements we could make, but we aren't making them. Instead, this bill waives environmental requirements and short-circuits permitting reviews at the expense of public health.”Further, this is a response to HR 1938, which is basically an attempt to rush through a decision on the Keystone XL Tar Sands Pipeline before an environmental review has been completed.
The Beatles first used samples of other music on "Yellow Submarine", the samples being added on 1 June 1966. The brass band solo was constructed from a Sousa march by George Martin and Geoff Emerick, the original solo was in the same key and was transferred to tape, cut into small segments and re-arranged to form a brief solo which was added to the song.[35]If you ever get a chance to watch “The Compleat Beatles” (and yes, I know it has been out for awhile now), Martin describes this process pretty well, for what it’s worth.
A similar technique was used for "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite" on 20 February 1967. To try to create the atmosphere of a circus, Martin first proposed the use of a calliope (a steam-driven organ). Such was the power of the Beatles within EMI that phone calls were made to see if a calliope could be hired and brought into the studio. However, only automatic calliopes, controlled by punched cards, were available, so other techniques had to be used. Martin came up with taking taped samples from several steam organ pieces, cutting them into short lengths, "throwing them in the air" and splicing them together. It took two trials; in the first attempt, the pieces coincidentally came back in more or less original order.
Concerned that too many “deniers” are in the meteorology business, global warming activists this month launched a campaign to recruit local weathermen to hop aboard the alarmism bandwagon and expose those who are not fully convinced that the world is facing man-made doom.If that were actually true, then how do they bother to explain the following (from here)…
The Forecast the Facts campaign — led by 350.org, the League of Conservation Voters and the Citizen Engagement Lab — is pushing for more of a focus on global warming in weather forecasts, and is highlighting the many meteorologists who do not share their beliefs.
The smear allegation is disturbing and important to dispense with first. Presumably (Jason Samenow of the Washington Post’s Capital Weather Gang, echoing a similar charge) is referring to the fact that we have included quotations from climate change-denying meteorologists on our site. As yet, not one of those quoted has suggested that we have misrepresented their views. Indeed, many of these TV meteorologists are openly proud to be considered deniers. They say so on air, online, in emails to us, and in their affiliation with prominent denial sites like Icecap. Compiling a careful count of weather reporters who reject the scientific consensus on climate change hardly qualifies as a smear campaign. In fact, there are many weather reporters we have researched that we believe fall in the denial camp, but we have not quoted on our site because we do not have sufficient evidence.There’s a lot more information about the “Forecast the Facts” campaign from the Think Progress post; it definitely makes for interesting reading.
The battle over the right-to-work issue may be reaching a conclusion in Indiana as the state prepares to adopt its law, but the argument over exactly what the measure means for a state's economy is likely to rage on, unresolved, as it has for 70 years.Oh, please – in response, I give you the following from here (centered on Indiana, where former Bushie and current Repug governor Mitch Daniels is the last to try and foist the “right to work” scam)…
Since the 1940s, 22 states have passed laws barring unions from collecting mandatory fees from workers for labor representation. Supporters, mostly Republicans, insist the measure helps create a pro-business climate that attracts employers and increases jobs. Opponents say the law only leads to lower wages and poorer quality jobs.
The evidence on the issue is abundant, but also conflicting and murky. The clearest conclusion, according to many experts, is that the economies of states respond to a mix of factors, ranging from the swings in the national economy to demographic trends, and that isolating the impact of right-to-work is nearly impossible.
Not only have ‘right-to-work’ laws been found to reduce wages while not stimulating job growth in states that adopt them, this week’s Economic Snapshot shows Right-to-Work (RTW) is associated with a significant reduction in private-sector pension coverage. Private pension coverage in Indiana is currently greater than in 21 of 22 RTW states but will likely decrease if the state legislature passes the RTW law.And on this issue, I give you the following from the National Football League Players Association (this issue affects them because the upcoming Super Bowl is going to be played in Indianapolis)…
“Right-to-work” is a political ploy designed to destroy basic workers’ rights. It’s not about jobs or rights, and it’s the wrong priority for Indiana.And of course, the usual suspects have been propagandizing about “right to work” in the typical manner, as noted here.
The facts are clear—according to a January 2012 Economic Policy Institute briefing report (“Working Hard to Make Indiana Look Bad”), “right-to-work” will lower wages for a worker in Indiana by $1,500 a year because it weakens the ability of working families to work together, and it will make it less likely that working people will get health care and pensions.
So-called “right-to-work” bills divide working families at a time when communities need to stand united. We need unity—not division. We urge legislators in Indiana to oppose “right-to-work” efforts, and focus instead on job creation.
Looking for more savings, Mr. Scott pushed to privatize prisons andMedicaid and to institute drug testing for people seeking public assistance. At the same time, he provoked the ire of environmentalists by reducing financing for the state’s water management districts, directly affecting the environmentally fragile Everglades. Many of the most contentious measures, including drug testing and prison privatization, have landed the state in court.Umm…so, “land(ing) the state in court” over drug testing and prison privatization qualifies as “success”?
But the governor had a few failures, too.
Still, Mr. Scott possesses an unshakeable belief in the free market. It is what defines him. At a lunch on Thursday about economic development, he expressed disbelief over the attacks (all-but-named Repug presidential nominee Willard Mitt) Romney has faced for being a successful private equity manager with Bain Capital.Gee, I wonder if Scott is worried that, if our august corporate media and we humble, filthy, unkempt blogger types each give Romney’s Bain antics the scrutiny they deserve, then maybe, just maybe, more attention will be paid to Scott’s tenure at Columbia/HCA, the company that “perpetrated the greatest Medicare fraud in U.S. history” according to this (as well as the fact that Scott has now transferred his interest in Solantic, a health care company he co-founded that sells cheap prescription drugs…to his wife)?
“We shouldn’t be allowing candidates to attack people in business,” he said. “We should be saying, ‘Gosh, that’s us.’ ”
Current-dollar GDP was revised down for all 3 years: $77.6 billion, or 0.5 percent, for 2008; $180.0 billion, or 1.3 percent, for 2009; and $133.9 billion, or 0.9 percent, for 2010. The percent change from the preceding year was revised down from an increase of 2.2 percent to an increase of 1.9 percent for 2008; was revised down from a decrease of 1.7 percent to a decrease of 2.5 percent for 2009; and was revised up from an increase of 3.8 percent to an increase of 4.2 percent for 2010. Current-dollar gross national product (GNP) (GDP plus net receipts of income from the rest of the world) was revised down for all 3 years: $82.9 billion, or 0.6 percent, for 2008; $174.1 billion, or 1.2 percent, for 2009; and $132.8 billion, or 0.9 percent, for 2010… Current-dollar GDP was also revised down for all 4 years from 2004-2007: $14.5 billion for 2004, $15.4 billion for 2005, $21.7 billion for 2006, and $33.1 billion for 2007.So basically, “current dollar GDP” has been getting “written down” by the US Bureau of Economic Analysis for some time, even predating Obama back to the ruinous reign of Former President Highest Disapproval Rating In Gallup Poll History.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
There was nothing big, like tax reform or entitlement reform. There was no comprehensive effort to restore trust in government by sweeping away the tax credits and special-interest schemes that entangle Washington. Ninety percent of American workers work in the service economy, but Obama spoke mostly about manufacturing.Of course, the esteemed David Brooks doesn’t provide sourcing for this claim (figures). However, I think the following should be noted from here…
Instead, there were a series of modest proposals that poll well. In that sense, it was the Democratic version of Newt Gingrich’s original “Contract With America” — a series of medium-size ideas with 80 percent approval ratings.
The truth about the fabled Contract With America is much different than (the portrayal by Jeffrey Goldberg in the New Yorker) in fact, he is propping up a thoroughly discredited bit of revisionist history. Rather than being the catalyst for the Republican’s 1994 victory, as many reporters have since portrayed it, the Contract with America actually made its debut only six weeks before the 1994 election, which makes its effect on the outcome a debatable proposition.From what I read of these things, apparently Willard Mitt Romney is getting plenty of help from the Repug establishment in deflating the candidacy of Baby Newton Leroy (and some corporate media support too, including this shocking bit of actual reporting from Brooks’s co-worker Sheryl Gay Stolberg). So try as BoBo might, somehow I don’t think all the king’s horses and all the king’s men are going to put the disgraced former U.S. House speaker back together again.
What isn’t debatable is that, back in the days before the 1994 election, the Contract’s celebrated “drama and clarity” was lost on the majority of Americans. The fact is, according to an article that appeared in the December 1994/January 1995 issue of Campaigns & Elections, “very few voters were even aware of this contract during the election: just 31 percent had heard of the Contract in a late October [1994] NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.
“Moreover, very few Republican candidates ran television ads promoting their signing of the contract, while scores of Democrats ran commercials attacking their opponents for supporting a proposal that would endanger Social Security and Medicare.”
Similarly, a poll taken by New Jersey’s Star-Ledger in Febraury1995 found that 55 percent of New Jersey residents polled “have not read or heard much about” the Contract. The poll also found that “Among those who voted Republican, 55 percent say that the Contract with America was not a reason why they selected their candidate.”
President Obama's State of the Union address was disgusting.Umm…here is more context on what Obama actually said…
The president began with a moving tribute to the armed forces and their accomplishments. But as he has done many times now, he celebrated martial virtues not to rally support for the military, but to cover himself in glory -- he killed Osama bin Laden! -- and to convince the American people that they should fall in line and march in lockstep.
He said of the military: "At a time when too many of our institutions have let us down, they exceed all expectations. They're not consumed with personal ambition. They don't obsess over their differences. They focus on the mission at hand. They work together. Imagine what we could accomplish if we followed their example. Think about the America within our reach."
That is disgusting.
What Obama is saying, quite plainly, is that America would be better off if it wasn't America any longer. He's making the case not for American exceptionalism, but Spartan exceptionalism.
Think about the America within our reach: a country that leads the world in educating its people; an America that attracts a new generation of high-tech manufacturing and high-paying jobs; a future where we’re in control of our own energy; and our security and prosperity aren’t so tied to unstable parts of the world. An economy built to last, where hard work pays off and responsibility is rewarded.Doesn’t sound so “disgusting” after all, does it?
We can do this. I know we can, because we’ve done it before. At the end of World War II, when another generation of heroes returned home from combat, they built the strongest economy and middle class the world has ever known.
My grandfather, a veteran of Patton’s Army, got the chance to go to college on the G.I. Bill. My grandmother, who worked on a bomber assembly line, was part of a workforce that turned out the best products on Earth.
The two of them shared the optimism of a nation that had triumphed over a depression and fascism. They understood they were part of something larger, that they were contributing to a story of success that every American had a chance to share: the basic American promise that if you worked hard, you could do well enough to raise a family, own a home, send your kids to college, and put a little away for retirement.
The defining issue of our time is how to keep that promise alive. No challenge is more urgent. No debate is more important. We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by, or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, and everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules.
For Americans who now purchase health insurance on their own, my proposal would mean a substantial tax savings — $4,500 for a family of four making $60,000 a year. And for the millions of other Americans who have no health insurance at all, this deduction would help put a basic private health insurance plan within their reach.And by the way, do you want to know how our pal Jonah rose to prominence to begin with? Check this out…
…
It is in our vital interest to diversify America's energy supply — and the way forward is through technology. We must continue changing the way America generates electric power — by even greater use of clean coal technology ... solar and wind energy ... and clean, safe nuclear power. We need to press on with battery research for plug-in and hybrid vehicles, and expand the use of clean diesel vehicles and biodiesel fuel. We must continue investing in new methods of producing ethanol — using everything from wood chips, to grasses, to agricultural wastes. We have made a lot of progress, thanks to good policies in Washington and the strong response of the market. Now even more dramatic advances are within reach.
Goldberg's career as a pundit was launched following his mother Lucianne Goldberg's role in the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, when he wrote about the "media siege" on his mother's apartment in The New Yorker.[2][3]And Goldberg is the one telling us what is disgusting?
Goldberg has spoken of his mother and the Lewinsky scandal:
My mother was the one who advised Linda Tripp to record her conversations with Monica Lewinsky and to save the dress. I was privy to some of that stuff, and when the administration set about to destroy Lewinsky, Tripp, and my mom, I defended my mom and by extension Tripp... I have zero desire to have those arguments again. I did my bit in the trenches of Clinton's trousers.[4]
"If there is a villain in this tragedy, it lies in that investigation, and not in Joe Paterno's response."And of course, the remark earned a standing ovation.
… because of the pressure that was placed on Nike by consumers, women workers no longer have to prove they are menstruating to get their legally guaranteed leave. Also, workers are no longer beaten with machetes or threatened at gunpoint for union organizing activity.I’m not going to try and equate Nike’s business practices with the recruiting and coaching activities of Joe Paterno, since I believe there is no comparison. What I’m saying, though, is that, given all this, Phil Knight has no right whatsoever to try and claim the moral high ground here.
However, while we have seen the progress mentioned above, we still have no movement on the two most important issues - Nike workers are still being paid a poverty wage and Nike still refuses to bargain with their workers in good faith.